<quoted text>You ...... squats on threads and takes up any stance that serves to denigrate America, her military and her way of life.

It's a hard and nasty job but someone has to do it.

The United Snakes has raped, tortured and murdered millions upon millions of innocent men, women, and children the world over, and for one year in Vietnam I was a part of it. Yes, I now do what I can to denigrate it while YOU SUPPORT IT yet you have no war experience. I'd say that it is you who's on the wrong side of the fence, RedButt Herpies.

tallyho wrote:

Under Sharia in Islam, all men are policemen and soldiers. All men have the right to bear arms

So ..... countering the pro-gun prophecy that says forbiding citizens to own firearms is the first step to Communism, in actual fact owning guns is the first sign of Islamic Sharia! So simple, but what a choice!!!

But could it be that guns do not define the line between what is good and what is bad? I think we should change the parametres and chose something else to separate the good from the bad. How about tooth-brushes? ONLY COWARDS NEED THEM!

<quoted text>Have you finished cleaning it yet?<quoted text>It's a hard and nasty job but someone has to do it.The United Snakes has raped, tortured and murdered millions upon millions of innocent men, women, and children the world over, and for one year in Vietnam I was a part of it. Yes, I now do what I can to denigrate it while YOU SUPPORT IT yet you have no war experience. I'd say that it is you who's on the wrong side of the fence, RedButt Herpies.<quoted text>So ..... countering the pro-gun prophecy that says forbiding citizens to own firearms is the first step to Communism, in actual fact owning guns is the first sign of Islamic Sharia! So simple, but what a choice!!!But could it be that guns do not define the line between what is good and what is bad? I think we should change the parametres and chose something else to separate the good from the bad. How about tooth-brushes? ONLY COWARDS NEED THEM!

You are a coward and a fuckingliar.If you served it was probably as a logistics clerk in the quartermaster corps however if you served I'm glad you survived only so your name doesn't dishonor the 56000+ on the wall...

<quoted text>1??Dr-Sniper wrote:<quoted text>I guess I'm getting mixed signals here after retreading your posts. Lets clear the air. Do you or do you not agree with an "assault weapons" ban and a high capacity magazine ban?Absolutly,How do they do any good toward putting meat on the table,ASSAULT, key word here, not for hunting.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

And *any* weapon is an "assault" weapon by its very nature. You can stab someone with an assault screwdriver, or bludgeon them with an assault tire iron.

But today's technical definition is any rifle that is capable of selective fire; meaning, with a flick of the switch you can go from semiautomatic to full automatic. The "assault" rifles available to the public do not fit this criteria--they are strictly semiautomatic.

<quoted text>The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.And *any* weapon is an "assault" weapon by its very nature. You can stab someone with an assault screwdriver, or bludgeon them with an assault tire iron.But today's technical definition is any rifle that is capable of selective fire; meaning, with a flick of the switch you can go from semiautomatic to full automatic. The "assault" rifles available to the public do not fit this criteria--they are strictly semiautomatic.

Tomato, tomatoe - irregardless of the "political" meaning - they're killers - and not to be confused with hunting or sporting firearms.

The 2nd Ammendment should be a priviledge, not a right - maybe then we'd have just a little more respect for each other than just for ourselves.

<quoted text>We already have over 20,000 gun control laws. How many more do you want?Here's a wild & wacky idea; how about *criminal* control? Or do liberals see that an an infringement on criminal rights?

read and think ...... each state , 50 of them ,have their own gun code.......... I'm thinking a uniform code like the age to drink ..... same in all { do you know why }

Good Morning fine Sir!I told my guns what you said and they're coming after you. They're even bringing screwdriver and tire iron.The 2nd Ammendment is a constitutional law giving "US" (citizens of the United States)the right to 'keep and bear arms'. There havebeen legal limits placed on type, kind, and size.Any further legislation requiring additional restrictions is unnecessary and deplorable.As citizens "WE" have rights; =privilege= a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor - Yes, you can get special licenses for that too!

Dr-Sniper wrote:<quoted text>Thanks for the recap. You still have not defined "Assault Rifle".

The first assault rifle

The StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44, literally "storm [or assault] rifle (model of 1944") was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle. It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively), which denote earlier development versions of the same weapon with some differences like a different butt end, muzzle nut, shape of the front sight base or with an unstepped barrel, all only visible with close inspection.

<quoted text>The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.And *any* weapon is an "assault" weapon by its very nature. You can stab someone with an assault screwdriver, or bludgeon them with an assault tire iron.But today's technical definition is any rifle that is capable of selective fire; meaning, with a flick of the switch you can go from semiautomatic to full automatic. The "assault" rifles available to the public do not fit this criteria--they are strictly semiautomatic.

in a way it does / as well as home defense / national defense

the right to arms was copied after the articles of the Mag na Carta of 1292???.... the King of England wanted to disarm his realm.... hunting was a way of life... but John wanted all to himself ....

Besides I watched Robin Hood

ps: a tyrannical ruler lead to rebel against a tyrannical government , because England was ruled by who could take power Saxons/Normans Tudor-Stewart etc etc

<quoted text>No, Moses didn't, but our founding fathers did and our patriots through out our history have watered the tree of freedom with their life blood.So what other portion of the old, outdated, useless fish wrap known as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights would you like to scrap or make more relevant. Maybe if we used more current idioms and slang to make it more relevant to the uneducated illiterate masses it would be more palatable. Without the threat of the 2nd, the others have no chance to remain intact. Do you like your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Do you like your freedom to assemble, to speak, to worship or not, as you choose, to petition the government for redress of wrongs. Do you like the freedom from housing, against your will, the troops of the U.S.Gov ernment, allowing them free access to all you own. Do you like your freedom from illegal search and seizure. Do you enjoy your due process and rights in the courts. Do you appreciate your right to a speedy trial and to confront your accuser.Remember, many countries do not have these rights enumerated and they do not have a 2nd amendment, so consequently they are oppressed and enjoy none of the rights we take for granted every day.

Unable to debate the relevence of a 236 year old document...WITHOUT SPIN, EH?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.